1

Arguments for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus strongly rely on testimonial evidence. Defenders of Jesus' resurrection as a historical fact typically argue that the writings of the New Testament are reliable first- or second-hand eyewitness testimonies in support of the resurrection, despite arguments to the contrary pointing out the implausibility of miracles (according to scientific common sense), the degree of uncertainty introduced by the antiquity of the writings (they were written about 2000 years ago) and the impossibility to interview the primary sources (all self-proclaimed eyewitnesses have long since died). Simply put, the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus consists of (1) the alleged first/second-hand eyewitness accounts compiled in the NT and (2) the willingness of early Christians to withstand persecution and martyrdom for what they believed to be true. Many find these two pieces of evidence put together compelling enough to warrant their belief in the resurrection. Others, more skeptical, would remain unwilling to accept the claim unless higher standards of evidence were to be presented.

To the best of my knowledge, cessationists have no issue whatsoever in accepting Jesus' miraculous resurrection on the basis of this "testimonial argument" referenced above.

That said, when it comes to the testimonial evidence of the spiritual gifts after the apostolic age, especially in modern times, an implicit double standard seems to be at play on the cessationist side. Contemporary firsthand accounts about how the spiritual gifts are still active abound. Unlike previous generations, in this internet era we have a privilege as never before to access an endless supply of firsthand eyewitness accounts witnessing to all kinds of miracles and supernatural experiences, including spiritual gifts such as tongues, words of knowledge, healings, etc. See the appendix below for a more exhaustive list of examples.

Surprisingly, despite the abundancy, recency and accessibility of contemporary firsthand eyewitness testimonies, cessationists usually disregard this evidence altogether, judging it to be unreliable, while paradoxically believing the eyewitness accounts for the resurrection of Jesus. Isn't this a case of double standard? What kind of logically consistent epistemology can simultaneously regard (1) limited 2000-year-old testimonial evidence as reliable and (2) abundant, recent and accessible testimonial evidence as unreliable?

Appendix

Examples of evidence for the continuation of the spiritual gifts after the apostolic age:

  • 3
    Uttering incomprehensible speech is trivial; rising from the dead, not so much. –  May 08 '21 at 12:19
  • 1
    @Lucian - what about real human languages, e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. –  May 08 '21 at 17:44
  • Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of modern day cases are not of that type. –  May 08 '21 at 19:02
  • 2
    @SpiritRealmInvestigator Rather than "less reliable" I would substitute with "less useful". Keep in mind that cessationists don't rule out how God's still healing and performing miracles today, and they believe exorcisms are necessary on occassions . In fact I would argue that cessationists are more rigorous in evaluating contemporary evidence and more cautious in interpreting evidence once the phenomena in question has been certified as beyond natural explanation. – GratefulDisciple May 08 '21 at 19:07
  • 1
    @Lucian There's a relevant Dilbert quote: "On the internet, no-one knows you're a dog." The statements existing on freely-accessible internet sites does not mean they are truthful, correct, accurate, or verified. If a double standard exists, it is only (as you say) that dogma of alleged events 2000 years ago is less fully questioned, but then you run into the Credo problem where you literally cannot be a Christian (or at least some sects of Christian) without accepting these aspects on faith. – Graham May 08 '21 at 21:38
  • Defenders of the historicity of Jesus' resurrection typically argue that the writings of the New Testament are supposedly reliable first- or second-hand eyewitness testimonies. When I google "how long after jesus died was the bible written", I get 70 years. What reliable first hand eyewitness testimonies exist in the Bible? – TKoL Jul 25 '21 at 16:50
  • Sorry, mistake in my previous comment, it's 40 years: The oral traditions within the church formed the substance of the Gospels, the earliest book of which is Mark, written around 70 A.D., 40 years after the death of Jesus – TKoL Jul 25 '21 at 16:51
  • @TKoL - check out the second argument in this answer. –  Jul 25 '21 at 17:31
  • I don't find argument 2 in that answer compelling at all. In fact I would describe that argument as patently, unarguably false. I'll detail why: – TKoL Jul 26 '21 at 08:00
  • P3 - The GoM was written at a time when prominent eyewitnesses could have called out a fabrication, P4 - If prominent eyewitnesses had called the GoM out for fabricated claims, the document never would have achieved successful, monumental distribution as a trusted source – TKoL Jul 26 '21 at 08:00
  • This relies on a whole lot of assumptions that I do'nt think are possible to rely on, namely literacy rates, and systems to redress the publication of false information – TKoL Jul 26 '21 at 08:01
  • Now, you are surely aware that false information is published, widely spread, and widely believed today. Today, in the 21st century, it's not just a problem but a MASSIVE problem – TKoL Jul 26 '21 at 08:02
  • The idea that in 70 AD, they had systems to deal with that sort of thing that were more effective than today seems on the face of it to be unquestionably false. – TKoL Jul 26 '21 at 08:02
  • But even if that were a good argument, that still doesn't seem to be an argument that it is in fact a first person account. Just an argument that that account wasn't corrected by eye witnesses, which is a decidedly different statement. – TKoL Jul 26 '21 at 08:04

2 Answers2

5

  1. There is no reference to tongues/healings/miracles in the pastoral epistles nor the later writings of John. References to Pentecost are about the utterance of foreign, earthly, languages.

  2. Then no mention of such things, generally, until about 1905. Then an explosion of claims during the past hundred years.

  3. This looks like a modern movement with no apostolic basis in sound, doctrinal fact.

  4. It also follows the trend prophesied by Paul and Peter, in the last days, of a departure from sound doctrine and the pursuit of other things.

  5. The evidence stretches across two millenia, not just the last century.

  6. It is a distraction from Jesus Christ : his sufferings, death, resurrection, ascension and return.

  7. It rather draws attention to what is excessive and unbalanced.

Cessationists look at all the evidence across two thousand years and are regarding all the evidence in the apostolic documents, the gospels, the early epistles, the pastoral epistles, Peter's epistles, John's epistles and Paul's epistles.

This is weighed against extravagant claims starting at the beginning of the twentieth century.

There is no comparison between the evidence of the apostolic testimony of chosen vessels of Jesus Christ regarding Jesus Christ's resurrection . . . . . and the claims made in very modern times of peculiar, extravagant, unbalanced and unprofitable excesses among a small minority of Christendom.

No comparison whatsoever.

Nigel J
  • 25,017
  • 2
  • 26
  • 63
  • What about 1 Cor 12? 2) You should probably read these: link 1, link 2. 3) See previous links. 4) There is a risk that you may be overgeneralizing here, by taking a few bad examples of abuse of the gifts and then thinking all instances are the same. It's like encountering a few black dogs and concluding that all dogs must be black. 5) See the previous links. 6) Are you saying that 1 Cor 12 is a distraction from Christ?
    • –  May 08 '21 at 17:10
  • Again, you appear to be issuing a general judgement based on a few disappointing instances you may have encountered. That's a fallacious use of induction. If the weather is generally cloudy in my town, can I make the generalization that it is generally cloudy everywhere else on earth?
    • –  May 08 '21 at 17:13